Boris v Ken – an independent guide

Tony Travers, London government expert at the LSE, gives his verdict on the candidates

Wednesday 2 May 2012 11:28 BST

Your choice: Boris Johnson or Ken Livingstone

CRIME

WHAT BORIS HAS PROMISED:

Make streets safer with 1000 more police on the beat

Boost Safer Neighbourhood teams

Establish a new Sentencing Unit for London to concentrate on violent crime

WHAT KEN HAS PROMISED:

Reverse the cut in police numbers.

Safer Neighbourhood Teams will be beefed up to nine officers, all with a sergeant to lead them

20 pilot projects to tackle gang and youth crime

MY VERDICT:

Official statistics suggest there has been a small increase in the overall number of officers during Boris’s term of office, though there have been cuts recently. Given the public spending cuts imposed by the Chancellor, the current mayor has done reasonably well in defending what is, by historic standards, a high number of police.

Safer Neighbourhood Teams, which Ken Livingstone pioneered, are popular and effective. Both Ken and Boris want to expand them, though neither gives much clue where the money will come from. However, the Metropolitan Police faces a number of serious challenges. The handling of last summer’s riots, issues raised by the Leveson Inquiry and a perception that some officers have a problem with younger people from minority communities all need to be addressed.

Neither Boris nor Ken has explained how the mayor should handle their political influence over police management and operations. During the next four years, the mayor must push the police hard to avoid the kind of failures that have been common latterly.

Will cut fares by 7 per cent this year and freeze them throughout 2013. From 2014 fares will not rise above inflation

Build support for new projects such as Crossrail 2 (Chelsea- Hackney), DLR extension to Dagenham Dock, Croydon Tramlink extension and Crossriver tram

Oppose a Thames Estuary airport

Abandon the ‘new bus for London’

Increase Tube accessibility for the disabled

MY VERDICT:

There is a major, clear, difference between Ken Livingstone’s promise to cut fares by seven per cent later this year then slow down the rate of increase and Boris Johnson’s willingness to allow fares to rise ahead of inflation. Indeed, this is probably the single biggest – and most easy to understand – policy choice in the election. There is little doubt that Ken will find the cash for the initial fares cut, because TfL carries large cash reserves. But over four years, a massive gap would open up between Boris and Ken in relation to the amount of money available for investing in the Tube and buses.

Each £1 can only be used once. Londoners will have to choose between paying slightly lower fares in the short term and the risk of lower levels of investment in the long term. Similarly, London needs additional airport capacity, the Thames Hub is the only possible wayof breaking the Heathrow logjam so far proposed. Again there is a straight choice between the two leading candidates.

ECONOMY

WHAT BORIS HAS PROMISED:

Create 200,000 jobs over four years

Invest £221 million to transform local high streets, supporting small business

Secure a better deal from London from No 10

Increase the number of Business Improvement Districts

Fight European Union interference and red tape

WHAT KEN HAS PROMISED:

Restore a London-wide Educational Maintenance Allowance of up to £30 per week in term by bringing together existing funds in colleges, universities, and local authorities

Aim to create enough places for all 16-18 years olds who wish to take up an apprenticeship

Secure super-fast broadband investment

Promote London abroad

MY VERDICT:

Polls have shown the parlous state of the economy is important to people. Johnson has to some extent protected London from the worst ravages of the Chancellor’s cuts – especially transport spending. The promise to generate 200,000 jobs in four years is optimistic in current circumstances, though anti-EU rhetoric about red tape will be popular with small businesses.

Ken’s commitment to restore the EMA depends on his being able to get other agencies to pay for it, which is pretty unlikely. When mayor previously, Livingstone had ‘embassies’ in a number of overseas cities: he clearly hopes to re-open them. Super-fast broadband is essential for competitiveness, though it is unclear how the mayor could do much to encourage it.

Neither candidate has put forward a cogent case for what they would do to fill in the growth gap left by the inevitable weakness of finance and banking in the coming years. London would need to promote higher education, private healthcare, tourism and other high value-added sectors. There are few clues in the manifestos as to how this might happen.

HOUSING

WHAT BORIS HAS PROMISED:

Ensure an Olympic legacy, producing 11,000 new homes and 10,000 new jobs

Create 55,000 more affordable homes by 2015

Oppose rent controls

Work with government to encourage ‘build to let’ schemes

WHAT KEN HAS PROMISED:

Establish an all-London non-profit making lettings agency which will help reduce rents and provide secure tenancies

Campaign for legislation to control rent increases.

Set up a London-wide landlord registration scheme

Enable take-up of money from energy companies for better insulation.

MY VERDICT:

Ken Livingstone’s promise to regulate private rentals is likely to be welcomed by the capital’s many tenants. However, it is hard to see how regulation can be put in place without central government agreement. Boris Johnson is explicitly opposed to rent controls – creating a difference of intent, if not of likely impact. Similarly, it is difficult to see how Ken’s ‘campaign’ to control rent rises can happen unless the government wants to. The take-up of money from energy companies to improve insulation looks far more likely to be delivered.

Boris’s ‘build to let’ idea sounds good, but there is much evidence this has not worked in the past. Moreover, it would require a huge increase in such homes to make any real impact on rentals. The Olympic housing legacy is likely to happen, making a large number of new homes available – though this would probably occur whoever was mayor.

The London housing market is hard to influence unless central government is heavily involved. The biggest single current housing issue is the impact of benefit caps. The candidates’ policies would make only a tiny dent in the challenge of providing big numbers of additional homes.

LIFE IN LONDON

WHAT BORIS HAS PROMISED:

Cut waste at City Hall, freeing up £3.5 billion for services

Cut the Mayor’s share of council tax by 10 per cent over four years

Restore 300 acres of green space and plant 20,000 street trees

Introduce a Mayoral Twitter Time each month, plus a monthly email about progress

WHAT KEN HAS PROMISED:

Harness the buying power of Transport for London to purchase energy on wholesale markets, giving Londoners a cheaper alternative to existing companies

Help families with the upfront cost of childcare through offering grants of up to £700 to low income families and interest-free loans to families earning up to £40,000.

Invest in a new fleet of electric buses and support the development of electric taxis

Crack down on high pay in City Hall

MY VERDICT:

Ken’s proposed help with childcare is a simple policy which would probably be fundable by City Hall. On the other hand, it would be very hard to sell ‘wholesale’ electricity to London households without creating a big new bureaucracy. Electric buses would be deliverable. Cracking down on high pay would be popular – certainly with Tory ministers.

Boris has gone hard for cutting City Hall waste and reducing his share of council tax. Although not cutting as much from household bills as Ken’s fares policy, it would be more likely to be fully delivered. Restoring green space and planting trees would be modest, but deliverable improvements. Mayoral ‘Twitter Time’ will appeal to lovers of new technology.

Both the leading candidates have a number of pleasing ‘quality of life’ type policies, suggesting an understanding that the city has to be made easier for those who survive it every day.